JUDGE ANDREW P. DULNUAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. ESTEBAN D. DACSIG, CLERK OF COURT II, RESPONDENT.

Dulnuan versus Dacsig

The Case

This is an administrative disciplinary case brought by Judge Andrew P. Dulnuan, the presiding judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Madella-Natipunan, Quirino, against Esteban D. Dacsig, his Clerk of Court II. The judge recommended that the respondent's salary be suspended and that other administrative sanctions be imposed upon him for taking absences without leave, which the judge attributed to drunkenness. The case matters because it fixes the Court's approach to unauthorized absences in the judiciary: the duty to secure an approved leave is not a mere formality, and the penalty is drawn from the Civil Service rules rather than from sympathy for the employee's personal troubles.

Procedural History

The matter began with a letter of the presiding judge addressed to the Chief Judicial Staff Officer of the Leave Division of the Office of the Court Administrator, recommending sanctions against his Clerk of Court. The Office of Administrative Services of the Office of the Court Administrator referred the matter to its Legal Office, and the Court Administrator referred the judge's letter to the respondent for his comment. The respondent filed his comment, and the Office of the Court Administrator submitted its report recommending that he be fined five thousand pesos for a first offense of simple misconduct, with a warning. The case then reached the Supreme Court as an administrative matter, and the Court rendered its own ruling on the report and the records.

Facts

The respondent incurred several absences without leave in 2009 and 2010. He was absent four times in December 2009, on the seventh, eighth, ninth, and eleventh days of that month, and three times in April 2010, on the twenty-first, twenty-second, and twenty-third days. He also failed to enter his name in the office log book from January 2010 until the nineteenth of April 2010. The time cards he submitted for March 2010 carried a notation that the office bundy clock had malfunctioned in the last week of that month.

In a letter to the Office of the Court Administrator, the respondent admitted that he had taken those absences without leave. He begged that no administrative sanctions be imposed upon him for this initial infraction, saying that he was going through a personal crisis that made him vulnerable to drunkenness, and that he was working out means to address the matter for his own personal redemption. He added that should it fail and the absence be repeated, he had no recourse but to voluntarily resign or for the office to consider him resigned.

In his later comment, the respondent explained that he used his force leave from the seventh to the ninth of December to visit his family at Mayoyao, Ifugao. As to his absence on the eleventh of December, he claimed that he had asked the judge a week in advance for permission to attend a non-government organization event. He said he was again in Mayoyao, Ifugao, from the twenty-first to the twenty-third of April, to talk to his wife about their marital problems.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of taking unauthorized absences for failure to obtain the necessary leave permits.
• Whether or not the respondent may be held liable for simple misconduct on account of drunkenness.
• Whether or not the penalty of suspension for six months and one day is the proper penalty for frequent unauthorized absences committed by a first offender.

Applicable Provisions

Section 16 of Rule XVI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order Number 292 provides:

SECTION 16. All applications for sick leaves of absence for one full day or more shall be on the prescribed form and shall be filed immediately upon the employee's return from such leave. Notice of absence, however, should be sent to the immediate supervisor and/or to the office head. Application for sick leave in excess of five days shall be accompanied by a proper medical certificate.

This provision anchors the requirement of a written application for leave, which the respondent failed to observe.

Section 20 of the same Rule provides:

SECTION 20. Leave of absence for any reason other than illness of an officer or employee or of any member of his immediate family must be contingent upon the needs of the service. Hence, the grant of vacation leave shall be at the discretion of the head of department/agency.

This provision makes vacation leave discretionary on the head of agency, so the respondent could not treat his absences as leave already granted.

Section 50 of Memorandum Circular Number 41, series of 1998, provides:

Officials or employees who are absent without approved leave shall not be entitled to receive their salary corresponding to the period of his unauthorized leave of absence.

This provision supplies the salary consequence of unauthorized absence.

Administrative Circular Number 2-99, which took effect on the first of February 1999, provides:

Absenteeism and tardiness, even if such do not qualify as "habitual" or "frequent" under Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 04, Series of 1991, shall be dealt with severely.

This provision states the Court's policy of severity toward absenteeism in the judiciary.

Rule IV, Section 52 (A) (17) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides:

The penalty for frequent unauthorized absences of a first offender is suspension for six months and one day to one year.

This provision fixes the penalty the Court ultimately imposed.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent was clearly guilty of taking unauthorized absences. Under the Civil Service rules, an employee should submit in advance, whenever possible, an application for a vacation leave of absence for action by the proper chief of agency prior to the effective date of the leave. The respondent failed to acquire the necessary leave permits and offered no excuse or explanation for that failure. The Court also noted that he did not explain his failure to enter his name in the office log book from January 2010 to the nineteenth of April 2010, nor his claim that the bundy clock had malfunctioned in the last week of March 2010.

On the second issue, the Court declined to hold the respondent liable for simple misconduct on account of drunkenness. Although he readily admitted the charge, the records did not show that he had failed to live up to his duty to observe proper decorum, or to live up to the stringent standard of conduct demanded from everyone connected with the administration of justice, because of his drunkenness.

On the third issue, the Court applied the schedule of penalties in the Uniform Rules. Since the respondent was a first offender, the penalty for frequent unauthorized absences was suspension for six months and one day to one year, and the Court imposed the minimum of that range. The Court thus rejected the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator, which had proposed a fine of five thousand pesos for simple misconduct.

Doctrine

First, an application for vacation leave must be submitted in advance, whenever possible, for action by the proper chief of agency before the effective date of the leave, and the grant of vacation leave is at the discretion of the head of the agency. An employee who takes absences without an approved leave is guilty of unauthorized absences, and under Section 50 of Memorandum Circular Number 41, series of 1998, is not entitled to salary for the period of the unauthorized leave.

Second, absenteeism and tardiness in the judiciary are dealt with severely even if they do not qualify as habitual or frequent under the Civil Service Commission rules, because everyone connected with the administration of justice is held to a stringent standard of conduct.

Third, the penalty for frequent unauthorized absences of a first offender is suspension for six months and one day to one year, and drunkenness alone, without a showing of failure to observe proper decorum, does not justify a charge of simple misconduct.

Disposition

The Court found the respondent guilty of taking frequent unauthorized absences, suspended him for six months and one day, and warned that a repetition of the same or a similar offense would warrant a more severe penalty.

Remember This

Memorize this line: frequent unauthorized absences by a first offender carry suspension of six months and one day to one year, and absenteeism in the judiciary is dealt with severely even if not habitual. Examiners use this case to test the penalty for unauthorized absences under the Uniform Rules and the distinction between absenteeism and simple misconduct based on drunkenness.